Origin of Nature
What certainties can be established by the study of the phenomena of nature? Some subjects of thought and inquiry are at once suggested by them:
(1). To what does nature owe its origin?
(2). Whence is the wisdom displayed throughout its system?
(3). What is the power by which all is carried on?
What light, then, can science give; or what certainties has it been able to establish in respect to these inquiries?
As to the origin of the works of nature, it is known that the widest difference of opinion exists and has existed.
Sir Isaac Newton, concludes his famous Principia with a general scholium, in which he maintains that the whole 'diversity of natural things " can have arisen from nothing but the ideas and the will of one necessarily existing being, who is always and everywhere, God Supreme, infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, absolutely perfect." A. little more than a hundred years later Laplace began to publish his, Mécanique Céleste which may be described as an extension of Newton's Principia on Newton's lines, translated into the language of the differential calculus. When Laplace went to make a formal presentation of his work to Napoleon, the latter remarked: “M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large, hook on the system of the universe and have never even mentioned its Creator." Whereupon Laplace drew himself up and answered bluntly: "'Sire,. I had no need of any such hypothesis." '
Since these words were spoken nearly another century has elapsed throughout which time well-known scientists have labored to put the elimination of this hypothesis on a scientific basis, with no other result than indicating the impossibility as well as the absurdity of such a procedure just now scientific opinion is again on the change, and we find the conclusion in a recent philosophical treatise as follows: "But above it (history) there can be only God as the living unity of all, and below it no longer things, but only the connecting conserving acts of the one Supreme."
The Sphere of Science
Scientists, then, differ amongst themselves.
Seeing this, is it possible, it may be asked, for the unscientific to have a settled and sure opinion on the subject'? The very fact that scientists do differ suggest that the question probably lies outside their province as scientists. Hence that suggestion is both possible and proper, apart from any pretense to learning or original research. The scientist can well be allowed his preeminence and honor in his own sphere, but not where he steps out of it. If science is asked what it has to say as to the origin of the phenomena it is occupied with, it must answer " Nothing," neither can it say anything. This subject is not in its province. Its province is to investigate things and laws that exist. “It (materialism) professes to start from the beginning, which science never can do; and when it is true to itself, never attempts to do." "The laws of nature only state the relations, they do not make them." And whatever these statements may be, they must accord with the facts, and be confined by the limits which facts prescribe. Discoveries may be made leading to a more accurate classification of matter, or a more definite statement of the principles and conditions according to which the forces in nature act,—but this knowledge must be the result of observation of phenomena as they exist, and the inquiry, like the discovery, is dependent on the existence and the fixedness of the laws proved to exist.
For the acceptance in science of that which is alleged to be discovered, it is necessary to prove that it is actually existent. And for this phenomena are taken as evidence. It would not be science, certainly, to discover a law that did not exist. The most sanguine scientist hardly expects to discover a law that does not exist! How then can the origin of the law, its passage from non-existence to existence, be discovered? The whole weight and argument of a scientific statement depend upon its confirmation by facts as they are. If facts are wanting, as science the statement has no weight. Its proof lies in fact.
The Character of Rational Proof
With philosophy, the object is to give for perceived effects an adequate cause. The condition of validity is of course that the cause assigned shall explain all facts or combinations of facts seen in the effect. This being the case, the cause is established on as solid a basis as reason can give it. The proof that there is such a cause is rational. The rejection of it, then, must be assigned either to incapacity of weighing arguments abstractly, because of subjective feelings and prejudices, or to willful determination to be guided by these prejudices in spite of reason.
That effects need a cause to produce them, is the principle with which science prosecutes its investigations of nature, and also the principle front which philosophy blows its bubbles. And it is a principle established as firmly in fact as it is in intuition. The apprehension of it is a common capacity of every rational being. Now, a cause can be assigned rationally to the phenomena of nature, but it must be in Him Who is Himself self-existent and whose power is creative.
There is 'but one alternative left to the materialist, (unless he merely evades the issue by urging his subjective ignorance of God), namely to declare that the laws are themselves self-creative and self-existent powers.
Wisdom Displayed in Nature
But this brings us to our second inquiry,—as to the wisdom which the works of nature exhibit. Now, even if the question as to the origin of the universe is philosophic and not scientific, that of the wisdom found 'in fact in the works of nature is not so. The fact of the wisdom displayed in the works of nature gives a scientific basis of inquiry. Here again the scientist himself supplies the principles and lassification by which the testimony can be rationally understood.
The separation in sphere and domain of mind from matter, is scientifically recognized. Mind is as much a fact to' science as matter. “We have seen Huxley, the scientific champion of agnosticism, run his ship high and dry on the idealistic side, and there capitulate:” Our one certainty," he acknowledges,” is the, existence of the mental world.'”
Mind has a sphere of its own, and the results of its activity are wholly apart from those of the activity of matter and from physical laws. Moral effects of the most diverse kinds will result front the same expenditure of energy. " For it requires no more physical force to utter a kind word than to speak an unkind one: the same strokes of a pen will sign a declaration of war or a treaty of peace; the same amount of waste phosphorus in the brain which determines the policy of a government in promoting internal improvements whereby commerce will be facilitated, could be made to determine a policy of isolation which, should make a hermit nation of a kingdom."
Testimony Respectively to Mind and to Matter in Phenomena
But through these results the relations of “facts of mind and facts of body " can be perceived and ascertained. Phenomena exhibit the relationship, but possess only the material. The forces and materials in nature can be made to serve intelligent purposes, but in their doing so, mind itself becomes no part of the: result.
The evidence of the part mind has had is not in the material, but in the use the Material is made to serve. Analyzes of the material, however scientifically thorough, will not give—is it necessary to say?—evidence of what part mind had, but of what the material used was. No evidence against a carpenter's mind having been employed upon the making of a box is found in the proof of its being wood, neither does this fact confirm any theory that a tree might have made it.
A piece of finely wrought tapestry, illustrating thought, taste and fact, by design and color, might be unraveled thread by thread. These threads, again, might be assorted according to their respective colors, or classified by their textures; or even farther described as to the quality of their molecules or the motion of their atomic system, until the analysis of the material was scientifically complete. Reconstructing could then be begun, and step by step the tapestry restored to its former estate; and then it might be brought forward as proof that, it having been subjected to a thorough scientific analysis and no mind or purpose being found in the material, none was in it, nor needed, to account for its being what it was. There was the clear proof that no, human mind had ever been engaged with it!
This illustration will at least serve to raise the question, What could possibly be found,—let the scientific materialist answer,—in an analysis of the material and forces of the universe, which would cause them to witness more than they do as they, are, to the wisdom, grace and power of a divine Creator? Neither is it any objection that the illustration omits to take account of the powers in nature,—of any force. The illustration does shew that it is absurd to look for mind in the analysis of material. And "this is equally true of force or motion. Intelligence can no more be imputed to them than to matter.
A denial, in face of all evidence, scientific and rational, of testimony to time activity of intelligence, when phenomena give evidence of it in fact, can only be made on subjective ground.
"The rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons" as it is written, minister both to his needs and happiness, and bear their witness to a kindly care and interest in him. Does he owe his debt of gratitude to the beneficent thought and purpose of unintelligent laws?
But perhaps he does not feel grateful, nor feel that any intelligence has been manifested in the universe. Be that as it may. But others cannot be expected to receive his not feeling grateful as a proof that the works of nature do not testify of Him “Who in wisdom has made them all."
The Power of Nature
The third inquiry is as to the power found in nature That power there is, by which purposes and ends are carried out, is certain. The, scientist knows this and puts it to account,—" knowledge is power." But this is saying that man is in himself powerless, his power consisting only in knowing how to utilize the powers he learns to be in nature. Moreover he can only count upon securing the results he desires by himself conforming to established laws. He cannot command their power. They do not obey his word, but the principles of their own energy. Yet, when he plans according to 'nature's laws, he can so absolutely count upon their faithfulness as to delegate the execution of the plans his mind has conceived to another who may have no intelligence in such matters at all. "After years of patient mining beneath the tumultuous waters of the channel connecting Long Island' Sound with New York harbor, a complicated mine is prepared with its chambers filled with dynamite.... The Engineer's daughter, a girl 'of tender years, is to be the agent employed to complete the plan and bring the catastrophe to a culmination. The electric batteries are arranged so that by simply pressing a button, the connection will be made which will send the electric current on its destructive errand." The powers of a scientist there depend-upon what he knows, and his knowledge is witnessed to by what he can do.
The Contrast of Man’s Knowledge As Power With the Power Itself in Nature
In nature we find a contrast. The power in nature is known by what it does. It is a power width does its own work, and carries out purposes and ends revealed by what is accomplished by it. The power itself' is proved obedient., accomplishing the end and purpose of an intelligence, and fulfilling the word of—Whom?
But with the profession of wisdom, in an enlightened age, the moral and rational state is pagan darkness. The heathen assigns power and dreaded influence to the works of his bands.
Such a notion is mere assumption, and irrational. The folly or it is manifest to all, for he can give no proof of his idol's possessing that which he assumes for it.
The analytic scientist sees before him a universe whose constitution exhibits incontestably the most marvelous and inscrutable display of wisdom and power in carrying purposes into effect. Has analysis resolved the universe into matter and motion? The scientist can express chemical constitution by formulas, or demonstrate the various stages and orders of development with the slides of a magic lantern. And a certain conception of what is found in. nature can be conveyed by these methods. But in using them the scientist can present only the idea,—not what the reality is or does in itself. For his idea he assumes the wisdom and power that has made the thing what it is. The thing itself is the proof that there exist such wisdom and power, and the assumption that they exist is justifiable, but when men ignore the reality and testimony, or further, assign wisdom and power to a substance, whether real or hypothetical, the heathen's idol,—or the scientist's stock,—the prime atom, the nebulae, protoplasm, vortex sponge or what not-their folly is manifested to all. Their theories do testify, not indeed to the wisdom and power of the creature but to the willfulness and blinded mind of those who attribute to the created that which belongs to the Creator.
The Limit Creation’s Evidence
But the evidence nature has to give is as definite in its limits as it is in character. It cannot reveal. God but only testify to Him and give the conception of Him as far as the display of His work can give it. Nature is His work, not Himself. His power and His divinity are understood from His visible works, though His moral attributes cannot be known from their evidence. For this reason He must reveal Himself. The evidence nature gives is a rational one. And man as it rational being can consider the evidence, and find that by the very principles of science and reason, in the understanding of which he prides himself, the evidence is absolutely unanswerable and conclusive, and can only be refused for subjective reasons.
If man denies his responsibility to God, he defies the evidence of nature and of his own conscience, and stands only and solely on the ground of his own subjective state of not knowing Him. He does not know Him, and concludes that therefore He is not! And yet in general those who take such or similar ground, frequently object to the believer's evidence as being “wholly subjective."
The Power in Nature a Witness to a Divine Will.
Still more marvelously, the more so because wholly inconceivable and contrary to human thought and method, comes the concurrent testimony in nature and in the Scripture, that there is power that obeys a divine command. Thoth agree in their witness to Him, whose word is power.
Science, for example, can speak of one thing certain as to the substance of light. To quote the words of Lord Kelvin who has been described as " our foremost physicist."—" You can imagine particles of something, the thing whose motion constitutes light. This thing we call the luminiferous ether. That is the only substance we are confident of in dynamics. One thing we are sure of and that is the reality and substantiality of the luminiferous ether."
The undulations in this substance require power to produce them. Science finds in phenomena a power which fulfills of itself the purpose whereunto it is sent. It is power which man finds neither in his own hands nor in his own words. He can by his intelligence learn to use power, but power is not his. The power of sin is a fact, so is man's powerlessness. Death is a fact; so is man's incapacity to cope with its power. With all the extension of man's knowledge of nature and the power in it, the secret of power he has no more touched than when nature was wholly unknown to him. He has learned to use the powers of nature but the power to carry out his own will of himself is as far from him as at the beginning. The words of Scripture are as true and grand in this scientific age in which they are now read as in the unscientific one in which they were given. “God hath spoken once; twice have I heard this; that power belongeth unto God." Psa. 62:1111God hath spoken once; twice have I heard this; that power belongeth unto God. (Psalm 62:11).
The power of human words lies wholly in what they can use; that of divine, in what they accomplish. Of the word of man it cannot be said, "He spake and it was done, he commanded and it stood fast." Man can only pander to the cry of man for satisfaction and amusement for a restless heat. He writes folly or worse in fiction, or he reasons and seeks to convey knowledge.
To prove that the testimony of Scripture reveals God and maintains His word to be power; is in itself sufficient to prove its source divine and not human. And yet not only is such testimony maintained throughout all the various parts of Scripture, but it may almost be said to be the foundation of all it declares. In this respect, the harmony of the whole is undeniable; and the Scriptures themselves possess the power they reveal.
The scientist will have to come to God from the same cause as the ignorant. It is need alone, developed maybe in very different circumstances and experiences from those of his neighbor, which compels any man to come to God's terms and take His word as it is given. Hunger teaches the scientist as well as the beggar to eat rather than analyze his food. And perhaps it can be said with the beggar, in doing so lie finds the evidences of its being food more satisfactory than any drawn from any analysis.
Would it convince the beggar that bread is not food, if it was beard that the scientist had starved while analyzing his loaf? The scientist certainly would starve on his analysis, and yet this would afford no evidence that bread is not food. And “main shall not live by bread alone, 'but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Humbling it may be to a critic's mind,' but still to live he has to eat in the same way as the most ignorant. And he with others has to decide whether to accept the Gospel of
God concerning His Son in faith, or starve on his analysis.
The "living Bread " has been given, " which if a man eat, he shall live forever," and the assurance uttered, " He that cometh to me shall never hunger, and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
Nature, which because of what it is, renders its testimony to the power and will of a Creator and Lord, owned the word of the Man of Sorrows, who had not where to say His head. The winds and waves were rebuked by His word; “and there was a great calm."
Power was with the word when “Jesus saith unto the deaf man, Ephphatha,—be opened; and straightway his ears were opened."
And power too was in that call that arrested the man, who hating the name of Jesus, was " yet breathing out threatening and slaughter " against all who confessed it, with "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me?"
He who afterward declared that he was not ashamed of the Gospel of God for it was His power unto salvation, had learned its power and grace in the call which came from the lips of the One Whom he thought was in the grave, but Whom he found to be alive in the glory of God.
The limits of this paper alloy' no further illustration than that in Scripture itself, where the testimony of God's power and grace in nature is so beautifully compared with that in. God's word, in that wonderful appeal to the heart of man: "He, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the Waters, and he that hath no money, come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price,... For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither your ways my ways, saith the Lord."
We have now closed our inquiry as to what man, as a rational being, can understand, his position in the world to be, in respect to his responsibility towards God. The rationalist at least, on his own principles, is bound to the position. Let him appeal to the evidence of nature, and he finds that, as to theories that set God aside, his feet have nothing under them but his subjective state; while the evidence convicts him of estrangement from God, but is itself in the most marvelous harmony with the word of reconciliation sent to him as a divine message in the day of grace.